I think the key is preliminary. We all know what's reported in the newspaper is subject to a whole lot of conditions, and they haven't necessarily been met, and these are clearly one of them.
Well, I guess the other question is, if it was so clearly part of the 101 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 original deal, despite the apologies of the Administration and of Mr. Martin on not being clear enough, if all of this was part and parcel of the bills we approved in December, why are you back here now? It must have been something that wasn't done or left undone in the rush -- again, in the rush before the very critical period before the Christmas holiday, because, you know, there's lots of amazing, mystical things that happen if we don't do things before the Christmas break too. So, I mean, there's two major times in our life. It's right before Christmas and right before the summer when all kind of terrible plagues come down upon the City if we don't do things in a certain time. But I'll tell you, if all of this was so neatly tied up, even though we didn't read it right or didn't get a chance to read it or didn't see it when we read it, why are you back here?
Councilman, we said at the prior hearings and we demonstrated in the documents that there was going to be a need to amend the SALP agreements.
According to 102 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 Mr. Hankowsky, and I'll read his statement again: "Let me make it absolutely clear again. We are not filling that hole. We're not going to come back here." (I guess he met Council.) "We are not going to take some City resources, change the deal, and add City dollars to the deal." I mean, I know Mr. Hankowsky's not here, he's an honorable guy and he did a great job in putting this thing together, but he was very clear from his comments that we wouldn't see you guys again on this subject. And what I believe the SALP agreement reallocation or reorganization is simply the ability to raise parking fees to allow Comcast to get into the deal. Comcast is a very big, important, and corporation in the City, and I admire them greatly, but they had the wherewithal to be in this deal without a $12 or $15 parking fee at the stadium complex. And that is part of what the issue is for me. This is not just the issue of public money coming from the General Fund or coming from debt service of the General Fund. This is public money, like the Airport, coming out of the public's 103 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 pocket. Now, you can call it "a user fee," and if I remember right, Councilmember DiCicco raised this issue of a surcharge on parking back in the November hearings, and it was dismissed as something that wouldn't be appropriate or wasn't needed. Now we come back and we make it very clear that the only way we're going to get this deal done without the Eagles walking off the site is by increasing the parking fee, which was what Councilman DiCicco requested and had dismissed back in November. Now, can you explain to me the duplicity here? Do you remember the interchange? I think it was with you and Councilman DiCicco about the parking surcharge.
It was with Mr. Hankowsky, but I do remember it, and there's a distinction between a parking surcharge --
And allowing -- a parking surcharge suggests money that's going directly to the public. What is happening here and what was stated at the prior hearing was that the teams would receive the parking revenue. 104 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 In terms of why we're sitting here and why that wasn't made clear before, in my testimony of January 31st, we talked about items where we would have to come back for further action by City Council. "In particular, the Administration expects to come before this body with proposed bills, and one of the ones that is listed is to amend the existing agreement between PAID and Spectrum Area Limited Partnership as regards parking arrangements for the spots complex." Now, you may certainly question about this money in 2025 and what you could have assumed, but you could not have assumed that you weren't going to see us here again because we told you back on January 31 we were coming back.
According to Mr. Hankowsky you weren't coming back -- well, maybe he meant him 'cause after the deal was done, he quit. Maybe he wasn't coming back here again, but I think he said, "We're not coming back here again." I just believe that what happened in this deal is, we approved this thing with a 53 or a $54 million hole, we all questioned the hole when we approved it, and we were given assurance that the 105 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 hole would not be filled in any way with public dollars. Shopped around the hole to a number of different place and weren't successful, thankfully, in getting DRPA money and some other money available to fill the hole. But now we're back here because you can't shop around anymore, and the only way to do it is by reallocating funds that would have come to the City or by raising parking fees for people who are going to use the facility. And I tell you, I don't mind that Comcast is in the deal, I don't mind that they want to be in the deal. All I wish is they would do what Ed Snider did back in 1993 or 4 and put their own money in the deal instead of putting other people's money in the deal. And that's my position and that's why I won't be supporting this particular request. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Councilman Rizzo. I'm sorry, Councilman Rizzo. David Cohen was first but I didn't know he was back in his seat. Is that okay? Councilman Cohen.
I know the 106 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 Republicans usually make the final decision in this council. Their three votes are very important. I endorse everything that Councilman Kenney said. It seems as if we're back in the 1800s, when you had to have a weapon, you know, before you went anywhere and you better be all armed for battle and don't trust the other person because he may shoot first. So, therefore, sometimes you shot first. 'Cause it seems to me that everything that comes from the Administration, City Council tends to take in good faith, the way we think we're being talked to honestly and fully and in good faith. And then later on, we learn that all kinds of words of art have been used that have one meaning to the Mayor and to the people who work for the Mayor and totally different meanings to us in City Council. And so maybe we're still very naive after many, many years in public life, but when the Mayor or the executive office or any representatives come to us and say, We're not coming back, this is it, there won't be any more City money, we're still naive enough to believe it. And then we find, but well, but you know, the City money, that's not 107 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 really City money, and maybe PAID is really a State agency and not a City agency; and, therefore, we'll put money into PAID instead of the City. You know, I just think that that was always a bad way to be dealt with between City Council and the Mayor, and I think it remains a bad way because it sours everything. And that's why there's so much confusion. For example, the firefighters were here and they have been on the phone -- I'm sure they've been on the phone to all Councilmembers, they've been with me, and they say simple things. And to me they're simple but they're true and they're clear. They say, How come the City's got money to suddenly throw $20 million more into the pot for the stadium but they don't seem to have any money for us and our hepatitis C problem? And, you know, that's pretty difficult. We can go through and I tried and they stopped me very quickly. I said, you know, there are different funds of money. Some money is City money and some people say other money which looks like City money, probably smells like City money, may even look like City money, but if you talk to 108 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 the executive office, you'll find it's not City money, it's some other kind of money. And I said, and the stadium money is different; it's not really City money, you know, and I can hear the pauses on the phone and the request to please speak ordinary English, you know, communicate with us. Because people don't understand that when it comes to the stadium -- and it just seems to be anything will work, anything that is required to get a vote today on a matter we're going to say, and later on, we'll find a way of explaining that we really didn't mean what we said. And so I'm at this point where I don't really understand why it's necessary. Maybe I start from a different point than Councilman Kenney and I don't want to reargue the economics of the stadium deal. A decision was made, I think it was a very unwise decision. I'm comforted by the fact that every economist in the country attests to the fact that stadiums are not engines of economic development, that cities usually find themselves totally unaffected economically by the existence of stadiums. Or in the one case, Baltimore, where there was an effect; the effect was a negative 109 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 effect, the economics of the city were hurt by the new stadium that people like to brag about and were not helped. So I don't want to argue with Mr. Longstreth, but I have to put the statement on the record 'cause I don't want anyone to believe that everybody in City Council really thinks that there's going to be economic development as a result of the stadiums.
I happen to agree with all the economists and even the Inquirer, which editorially supports the stadium deal, its main economist -- I think his name is Andrew Cassell, writes article 14 after article on the bad economics of stadiums. He says support a stadium if you like sport, if you get joy out of it, as we all are out of the possibility that Allen Iverson and the Sixers are going to prove to the Lakers that Philadelphia's the top team, that even with that, we'll sport, you know, stadiums for that reason. You like sports, you want the City to be the number-one team in sports field, fine. But don't support it on a false theory of saying it's going to help economics, 'cause it won't, it won't have any impact. The dollars that were spent for the stadium are going to 110 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 be -- would otherwise be spent on other areas. But tell me, do we know precisely how much it's going to take from City funds, this shift in parking revenue? How are you going to get the money? Are you going to increase the bond sale? Is that what's going to happen to get the additional money?
No, sir. In the Phillies lease, there is a requirement that the Phillies will receive -- there's a defined term in the lease, "additional contributions," which is money to be identified. A portion of that money is anticipated to go to the Phillies and a portion is anticipated to go to the Eagles. If the ordinances before Council are approved and allow for the restructuring of the parking, the Phillies and Comcast-Spectacor will in essence be sharing a pot of parking revenue, which will be generated mainly because of the increase in the number of spaces. And from that increased pot of revenue, they will, on their own, dedicate a slice of that for purposes of borrowing $20 million. The $20 million will then go to the Phillies, and under the terms of the agreement, the Phillies will 111 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 waive the right to receive that subset of the larger amount of additional contributions that the lease calls for. So it comes in through private sources into the Phillies. The way it works technically is that there will be a waiver by the Phillies of $20 million of additional contributions that are otherwise anticipated by the sublease.
Well, I see it totally different. You seem to indicate that this is going to be private money coming in. Who pays the interest on the bonds? You say that the increased revenue is going to be the basis for the $20 million loan.
But the bonds have nothing -- I don't want to confuse you. The bonds are the bonds. This $20 million has nothing to do with the bonds.
It's a private loan from a private lender to the Phillies or perhaps to a partner venture formed by the Phillies and Comcast-Spectacor. 112 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417
You mean it's going to be maybe what you call "a commercial loan" to cover loans that are not bonds?
Well, who's going to be paying the interest on that commercial loan?
The borrower, who, I'm assuming for these purposes, will be either the Phillies or perhaps a parking joint venture of the Phillies and Comcast-Spectacor.
Will there be any payments required on that loan to be made by PAID or by the City?
It will be by the public, as Councilman Kenney defined it, as a result of the additional -- the higher cost of parking? Is that's what's going to pay the loan? I'm having difficulty in understanding how the loan gets paid off.
The parking revenues at the complex as a whole are anticipated to increase for three reasons. We hope that there will be more customers down there in new stadiums as opposed to 113 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 old stadiums; there will be more parking spaces under the control of the sports complex; and as we previously said, those parking revenues are going to the teams. So that pie is increasing 'cause there are more spaces after expansion than there are now. And finally, the rates that are being charged for those spaces will be more than they are now. So all of those three factors -- more people coming, more spots to put their cars, and higher rates than they are currently paying -- will increase the pie of revenue resulting from parking, and that's where the money comes from.
Why can't that kind of creative thinking of making something out of kind of nothing, why can't we apply other forms of City funds (inaudible) to get the money necessary for the firefighters and hepatitis C? Why is that all of that creative financing, you know, with companies (inaudible) you're going to borrow money from companies that don't exist, we don't even know who will make up the company, it may be the two teams 114 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 themselves. Is that right? The two teams themselves may join in some kind of a joint venture to loan --
You know, it's very difficult to get full understanding of that out in the community. And I think everybody in the City would be much better off if the Administration, you know, were to talk cleanly from the beginning on and tell us what all the problems are and how we're going to resolve them and then -- so that Council can't come back later and say that you weren't fair with us. You know, you had a problem. I think just about every member of City Council agreed that none of us ever believed that you were going to come back for approval from City Council for some kind of funding that would be necessary to meet the gap. We were sure you were saying and the Mayor was telling us fully the truth as he understood it when he said this gap is going to be met without any 115 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 responsibility on the part of the City. Thank you, Madam President. It puts all of us in a very difficult position, and I can fully understand why the firefighters can't understand why the City doesn't find a way to meet their needs 'cause their focus is to really do something for the City, constantly putting their lives on the line, and we can't be creative enough to find out how to handle their medical problems caused by the work they do for us. And yet we can be so creative to find all kinds of ways of using City money, but really the dollars aren't genuine because if you felt them, you wouldn't find the necessary (inaudible) you know in the paper money that it was genuine money. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Martin, during the briefing that you had in the caucus room, the question was asked that you're the attorney obviously representing the City 116 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 of Philadelphia, correct, for the record?
I asked a question about the increase in TV revenue that the Eagles apparently will be receiving, 15, maybe, it's reported, and again, I asked it to be confirmed, possibly $20 million more in television revenues. The suggestion is that the shortfall could have a negative impact on any of the financing deals that are in progress. Don't you think that if the question that I've asked is true, that there's a significant increase in TV revenues that the Eagles will receive, it would certainly have a positive impact on any financing deal that would be taking place right now. The hard part to digest here is -- and I want to be -- you know, I'm supportive of these bills being voted out of here favorably so the process could go, but there was an expression that I grew up with: "There's a thin line between need and greed." And I'm wondering why this has become the total responsibility. Is it strictly because of the agreement that was struck, the one that we didn't 117 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 understand, or at least I didn't understand, that is requiring the taxpayers to come up and make up the shortfall. If the Eagles are going to pick up another 15, $20 million in television rights, why can't they use some of that to keep this project moving forward?
Councilman, I haven't yet -- although I've made an inquiry, I have not received a confirmation on the question that you first raised last Wednesday regarding what their expectations are regarding their TV revenue. And we are seeking to stay within the framework of the lease transaction that we negotiated with the teams. And I understand your concern that it's running disproportionately to the public sector. You know, the teams will come to us and the teams say that they have their own problems. The teams have represented to us that they're struggling with potential cost overruns on the design of their stadium, so that we're trying to balance the interests of the private and public sector so the project can keep moving.
Which we have no 25 responsibility for, we emphasize. 118 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417
So when we say to them, what about some of this extra revenue for the additional contributions, one of their responses has been, you, the public don't want to hear about our problems on construction costs.
Well, I think if I were an executive at the Eagles knowing how generous we've been and the atmosphere is that we'll just continue to be generous and just keep writing the checks, if I were an executive and worked for the Eagles, I'd be doing exactly knowing that what we're going to do what they want us to do with very little resistance.
Well, I do want to take a second to defend what we're proposing here because let's focus on the fact that the $20 million of additional contributions on its parking side is based upon arguably a pledge of only contingent revenues. Those revenues are only going to exist if the First Union Center extends its lease when it currently expires in 2025, and the present value of that stream of revenue is a number which is dwarfed by the $20 million of additional contributions. Similarly, in terms of the DRPA loan, 119 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 the DRPA loan is a loan only to the extent those teams renew and then pay the renewal rents, and that stream of income also is 2.4 as compared to million. If you put the two pieces together of 6 public money that I know that the Council has fair 7 concerns about, you're talking about in the range of 8 $3.8 million on the one side as compared with 9 $34 million of monies coming into the deal on the 10 other side. 11 So from a raw numbers perspective, you 12 know, as the Mayor said in his letter, he thinks 13 that it worked out to be a pretty good deal. 14
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Martin, I appreciate your legal skills and your ability to argue 'cause you're very good. However, the premise that you're arguing, from my perspective, is flawed in the following way. Stadium Area Limited Partners has a value of revenue that's projected as a result of the stadium operations today. That's the Vets Stadium, 120 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 Spectrum One, and the First Union, Comcast, Lacovia, or whoever it's going to be, those centers. There is an extremely lucrative value on the public investment that was made along with the private investment to build a new football facility and a new baseball field. The basis of the increase in revenue is directed to Stadium Area Limited Partners Comcast is directly related to our public investment of building two new facilities. They're going to have extensively more revenue as a result of the parking they control now because we made the public investment to build two new facilities to that will hopefully attract exponentially more people and cars to that facility. So what's wrong with the added value that they're gaining as a result of our public investment to build the Eagles facility and the Phillies facility on an ongoing year-round basis -- almost year-round now because there will be four buildings there that they could gain parking revenues from. I mean, they need the additional revenue from an increase in the parking fees to make it worthwhile for them? I'd argue that we've already made it 121 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 worthwhile to them by putting public money into two new facilities that's going to expand their ability to collect revenue by the multiple events and the increased number of patrons and their cars that will be filling the parking lot they control today. I mean, we discount in some way the initial public investment in December that has inured to the benefit of Comcast and their ability to collect additional parking revenues because we've invested public money. I mean, it's like almost as if the public investment that we made doesn't really count. We need to improve their situation vis-a-vis changing the configuration of the parking fees come 2025 out and allowing them to take the cap off to allow them to charge up to $12 or $15 a car. I mean, have we totally discounted the public investment that's improved Comcast revenue possibilities as a result of what we've done already?
Well, it's not factored into our argument. What would the parking be worth? I mean, the parking today, if we hadn't 122 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 done the facilities would be what it is today, with no increase, no real increase in customers, just about what they're getting now. We make a $300 million public investment along with the investment of the Phillies and the Eagles, a joint venture, and by virtue of just that investment, with Comcast doing nothing, have increased their parking revenues exponentially as a result of the opening of those two buildings in 2003 and hopefully 2004 or 2005. I mean, don't we get credit for doing that for them?
We do get credit, Councilman. Our position vis-a-vis Comcast has been complicated by the rights that were negotiated by them and given to them back in the '91 and '94 agreements so that --
Which they weren't a part of but they bought when they bought into or took over the Spectrum 2. I mean, they weren't -- part of the deal made in '91 and '94 was with Ed Snider.
But you understand, 123 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 Councilman, there --
Well -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
They were the successor entity, but didn't they read those documents when took over those facilities?
I guess they were like us; we didn't read the documents either.
We can't build the stadiums that we want to build without in essence the buy-in of Comcast-Spectacor.
And I don't dispute that. My point is, if Comcast-Spectacor wants to buy in, let them do it as Snider did, buy in. Why do we need to do maneuverings to allow the public in some form or another subsidize Comcast's involvement in the deal? Whether it's Comcast or whether it's "ABC Baking Company," I don't care who it is. The point is, we've already inured the benefit of Comcast resources there by investing $300 million in facilities that's going to increase 124 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 their parking revenues under the current agreement. I mean, we've done that already. Now, in addition to the current agreement and improving their parking revenues, we're going to take off the cap, allow them to do what they want to do as far as, you know, colluding in a good way together to discuss what the parking fees should be, potentially impacting the neighborhood because once the parking number hits, as we've discussed before -- once the price hits a certain level, people start looking for sports spots in the neighborhood, it's a natural phenomenon. I've seen it happen over the last years in that 14 sports complex. People will find a spot on the 15 street, they'll find it. 16 But besides that, we have improved 17 Comcast-Spectacor's revenues in December when we 18 approved those two deals and were exponentially 19 improved because the Eagles will be sold out every 20 game, they'll have soccer, they'll have concerts. The Phillies will hopefully -- I don't know, maybe they will, maybe they won't -- fill that building on a regular basis, which is not being filled today. Their revenues are enhanced tremendously as a result of the public investment we made in December. 125 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 Why now do we need to make an additional maneuver to get them more money so they can get the deal? I mean, why don't we get the deal? Why don't we get a piece?
Back in December, January we made the case what the benefit to the public of the new buildings were.
And the benefit to Comcast-Spectacor. You tell me that Comcast-Spectacor's position in the sports complex is not enhanced by us doing these public and private facilities? It's got to be. More people are coming to the complex.
You know, it not only enhances their parking revenues, but doesn't it enhance their development possibilities?
Councilman, your question is why didn't we say to them, Give us the $20 million, keep the caps on the rates, and make sure we get the 50 percent after 2025.
No. My question is, 126 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 why --
That's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying to them is, three private entities, go work it out. We've done it, we've done our thing in December. You guys want to work out a deal on naming rights or whatever it is, go work it out, but we're out of it.
But you're saying private entities, go work it out, but let me tell you about what constraints the public wants to put on your ability to generate revenue. That, in fact, is what we have done.
No, we're not putting constraints on them. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
We're not putting constraints on it because they bought into the deal when they took over from Ed Snider Spectrum 2 -- or First Union Center. They knew what the deal was when they took it over, they didn't? They got more lawyers than we do. 127 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 All I'm saying is that for us to discount or not to mention in this testimony the contribution and the improvement of their position in the sports complex because of the public investment we made in December and that we're making through the course of the next two or three years, I think it's unfair to us because basically what we're saying is, Poor Comcast, geez, they can't get the deal. Well, guess what, there are exponential revenues on parking along, in addition to potential development and commercial and retail in that complex is enhanced tremendously because of our public investment. And God bless them and God bless us if it all works out. But somehow, you know, this poor company, geez, they really need the extra money to get the deal. Well, get somebody else to get in the deal. Why does it have to be them?
Because they have pre-existing rights down there. We can't --
No, pre-existing rights to parking. 128 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417
Yes, and which we have enhanced their revenues by our public investment, which was never mentioned in anybody's testimony.
We're sort of going around in circles now, Councilman. Your answer is, why didn't say to Comcast, Take this deal or we'll go somewhere else. We were constrained by the agreements which were already in place.
No. What I'm suggesting is, instead of doing what we're doing now, by trying to plug a gap that was supposedly going to be plugged over the last six, seven months, five months with non-City involvement is now coming back, and we're going to do it. I mean, I think all Council President Verna letter was asking was, Admit it and just say this is what we've asked for, we were wrong back in December, we're coming back to you for more help. And what I'm saying, as far as Councilman Cohen concern and his recommendation, they don't have to be creative, Councilman Cohen; we need to be firm. If we want to take care of the firefighters and be fair to them, we don't move 129 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 anything out of here until the firefighters are taken care of, and when they're taken care of, we'll move it. We don't have to be creative, that's not creative, that's just hardball, and people play it all the time. And those firefighters sitting in here, waiting for help from us in some degree or another are going to keep on waiting because when we pass this out of committee today, which is probably what we're going to do, they're still not going to get any relief and there's no leverage to give them the relief they need. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Mr. Martin, you are aware that we've prepared an amendment to the master parking operations agreement that will ensure that significant amendments to that agreement come back to Council for approval. I understand that you have seen the amendment and that the Administration amenable to its adoption; is that correct?
And I believe 130 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 that a copy of the amendment has been put on every Councilman's desk. You'll stay with us, Councilman Cohen?
The argument just put forth by Councilman Kenney on the leveraging of the firefighters' problem makes an awful lot of sense, and I think that he's right. I think we probably could settle the issue of hepatitis C and firefighters, maybe even the police and the correctional officers that are involved in the state bill could be covered quite quickly if Council followed Councilman Kenney's advice. And I want you to know, you've convinced me. I'm not going to vote no these two bills.
Well, I think that makes a lot of sense and I think City Council has to think in terms of leveraging its power, just like the City Administration thinks in terms of leveraging funds. The same concept exists. If we want to solve the problem before us, we've got to be ready to use our power; otherwise, the Administration will continue to talk to us in one 131 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 way and explain to us months later that they meant something else. And if we keep falling for that approach, we're not going to solve many problems. So I'm joining Councilman Kenney in his vote in the hope that some more of my colleagues will and we'll get a solution both to the stadium bills and to the firefighters. I think we could have this problem solved by the end of the week if we vote no on this bill or hold it up until we settle the firefighters.
Are there any other questions or comments be members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Gentlemen, you will remain in the chamber, please. Tina Nelsen from CEPA. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you, Madam President. My name is Tina Nelsen and I'm the Executive Director of CEPA, the Consumer Education and Protective Association, and I am here today to urge Council to reject these proposed changes to the stadium deal. 132 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 It should be self-evident to every member of Council that the financial arrangements that are now being asked to be approved were not envisioned in the original bills setting forth the financing of the stadium deal. These bills prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that more public money is needed to build these stadiums than was envisioned, and it is in direct contradiction to what the public was told, that no additional public money would be needed, and it is also in direct contradiction to the legal representation the lawyers representing the City and PAID made to the court during the hearing challenging the legality of the stadium deal. Passing these bills would break the faith of the people of Philadelphia, who were told that no more money -- I repeat, no more money -- will be taken away from the necessary and the vital public services, which have previously been mentioned, to fund the stadium. It will also make it much more likely that we will win the lawsuit challenging the process used to pass the stadium. Part of the legal challenge is that the hearings were defective 133 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 because they did not inform the public as to the true and accurate public cost of the stadiums. And at this point, the only way to honorably and legally proceed is for Council to accurately calculate the true cost of the stadiums, cap the cost at that amount, and hold new and meaningful public hearings on the financing of the stadium. To do anything else would be deceiving the public, unconstitutional, and lead to more litigation. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Our next witness is Dr. Robert Sklaroff. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record. 134 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417
Councilwoman Verna and Councilpeople, thank you for holding this hearing. I am Robert B. Sklaroff, MD, and I'm here today to voice opposition to approval of Ordinance 416. My disclaimer is as follows. This testimony only related this ordinance. It has not been possible to review --
Excuse me, excuse me, Doctor. Have you circulated your testimony?
We didn't know you were coming in. I would really appreciate your abbreviating your testimony as much as possible. 135 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417
Thank you. (Dr. Sklaroff begins reading aloud his written testimony, which is attached hereto in its entirety.)
Do you have much more? Because we will make your entire testimony as part of the record. It will be given to the stenographer. Again, I'm going to ask you to please abbreviate your testimony.
Well, I'm putting a lot of information on the record for legal reasons as well because I want you to have a total knowledge not only of this information --
And I just told you that your entire testimony will be given to the stenographer and it will be in the record.
I understand that, but the public also has to know this information, and a lot of it, three pages of it, is --
What public is here? 136 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417
Whomever is here should be able to hear this information because I have a lot of it, three pages of which I acquired on Monday.
Apparently, you did a lot of work on this, and we appreciate it.
That is correct. (Dr. Sklaroff finishes reading aloud his submitted written testimony in its entirety.)
And that's why I wanted to read the whole thing, and I'm subject to a critique if anyone has any attack with anything I've said in terms of its accuracy 'cause my credibility is what trying to put forth at this time.
I just have some pages from the Geneva Convention that he didn't read as to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm sure the doctor means well, but at this late time and hour, I'll forego the question.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 137 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 You know, tomorrow Bill 629 is scheduled. I was just curious, for those folks who are in opposition to Bill 629 and allege that this bill will silence people, I would suggest that they reconsider their support for this bill after this last witness. Thank you anyway. (Laughter.)
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? (No questions.)
Are there any other witnesses to testify? (No response.)
I would ask all Councilmembers who are in the building to please report to the chambers. We're getting ready to vote 138 6/6/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010416, 417 on the bills that we have just heard. I'd like the record to also reflect that Councilman Longstreth, before leaving, did cast his vote in the affirmative on all bills and amendments. If there are no further witnesses, this will conclude our public hearing. - - - 139 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our public meeting. And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 010416. I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney first.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With all due respect and with apologies for any difficulties I'm putting on the Chair or other members of Council, I would reiterate my request on Bill No. 010416, that it be held at least until we come back in September in an effort to draw attention to the firefighters who need relief and whose contract is not being honored by the City and being appealed with City taxpayer dollars to stop the firefighters from receiving their arbitrated award. So I would reiterate that request. I appreciate and respect the Chair's ruling on it. If the Chair rules we will proceed, I will be voting no on the bill and urging my fellow colleagues to also vote no on behalf of our hard-working and courageous firefighters. Thank you. 140 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
With due respect to the Chair, my request has been made. It's a friendly request. I think the Chair understands my request and I think the members of the committee understand my request. It is not in the form of a motion.
Thank you, Councilman. I did hear your request earlier and I did check with the majority of the Councilmembers, and it is the sentiment that, one, the stadiums has absolutely nothing to do with hepatitis C or what is occurring, and I think that this bill is what it is. It's certainly not going to change, and whether we do it today or do it in the fall, it will not change. And I think that what we should be doing is trying to talk to the Administration to try to urge them and show our support for the firefighters and 141 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING see what avenue we could pursue in doing precisely what it is that you're asking.
I accept the Chair's ruling and the wishes. The only thing I would add for the record is that this Council in the past has admirably used linkage like Minority Business Enterprise and minority participation and things like Councilman Nutter's police review board and other types of linkages for worthy goals. I understand the way in which the legislative process works and I think that this might be an issue that will get the Administration's immediate attention, I would suspect. Having that being said, I accept the Chair's ruling.
Councilman, let's do this. If we report this out of committee today, we still do have a week before final passage on it. Maybe during that time, we could have a meeting with the Administration to ascertain what direction we can go in pursuing what it is that you would like to accomplish.
I accept the Chair's ruling on that and appreciate your effort to make 142 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING that happen. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President, I move that Bill 0104 --
I move that the amendment to Bill 010416 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as presented by adopted. All in favor will signify --
Point of order. With respect to what issue is that bill? What bill is it?
We're voting 143 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING on the stadium bills right now.
We've already voted on the School District bills.
All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 010416, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation for a suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010416 be voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. 144 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The record will reflect that Councilmembers Kenney and Cohen voted in the negative. All other Councilmembers have voted in the affirmative; therefore, the bill passes . The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell with regard to Bill No. 010417.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 010417 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 010417 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. 145 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING Those opposed? The ayes have it and the only one voting in the negative is Councilman Cohen, and the record will reflect that. Therefore, the bill passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 010420. Councilman Clarke?
We're voting on Bill No. 010420, the bill on the last page.
I don't have my sheet in front of me. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 010420 be reported out with a request for a suspension to be read at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010420 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit consideration at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. 146 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. And I want to thank everyone very much for all of their patience.
The notice went around to all of the members of the Streets and Services Committee, that the public meeting is being held tomorrow morning at 9:15, and we have 39 bills that have to be still be reported out of that committee.
And I would ask everyone to please be prompt because I think that we have approximately 60-some-odd bills to be considered tomorrow.
Madam Chair, there will also be a Public Property and Public Works Committee tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. There are only four bills on the calendar and if we can get a quorum quickly, it will move along right away.
I will be available if you need me. Councilwoman Miller? 147 6/6/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
I was out of the chambers when we took a vote on 708 and 709, and I'd like to be recorded as voting aye on both bills and amendments.
Thank you, the record will so reflect that. The record will also reflect that the vote was unanimous for the School District Bill No.'s 000708 and 000709.
I also want to note that the Law and Government Committee will be held at 1:30 in the afternoon, which will be a continuation on the health matters.
Thank you. I would urge everyone -- I know everybody's going to be interested in watching the game tonight, but try to get here early so that we could start business in a very timely fashion. Thank you. (Adjourned 6:07 p.m.) 148 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, June 6, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 000708, 000709, 010416, 010417, 010418, 010419, 010420 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter